701. Beware the Believers

Comment #155468 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Teapot

Given that almost non of us believe in absolute morality here. Unlike our religous wingnuts.

Depending on what you mean by "absolute". I am not convinced that full blown moral relativism is the necessary consequence of rejecting God. Burning widows on a funeral pyre is still wrong, provided we accept a few minimal axioms about ethics.

702. Beware the Believers

Comment #155456 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 2:07 pm

K

But once we have a viable embryo, it is immoral to kill it, in my opinion.

Why?

To say that it is immoral to "kill" a potential baby (actually terminating the process which may lead to a baby) you are saying that there is in some sense a moral duty to allow the potential of life to unfold. Why is that?

It may be desirable in some circumtstances to carry a pregnancy to terms, but why is it mandated by morality? Who is being hurt if I abort an embryo which may, but hasn't developed into a "person"?

If you want to claim a viable embryo is a person, you should explain why.

703. Beware the Believers

Comment #155449 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Steve,

What do you think of the viability argument? By viable I mean it can grow into a baby with "minimal" technological intervention outside the womb. So I would disagree with K's definition of viability. To assert that the fetus is a "life" seperated from the mother it has to be viable outside of the womb.

To be clear about what I don't mean, you can probably remove a one month old "fetus" from the womb and keep it "alive" in a jar, but it will not develop into a baby. It will remain just a partially developed clump of cells for as long as the life support is on.

It is concievable that technology in the future may be able to grow a zygote in a test tube into a baby, but this is about what technology is capable of in bring forth a potentiality, not that the potentiality is actually the end product.

It is a bit convoluted admittedly, hope I have stated it clearly enough.

704. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155423 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I believe that the Evolution vs. Creation debate is 'unbalanced' in the same way as the helio-centric vs. geo-centric solar system theries are unbalanced.

Not quite the correct comparison. The geo-centric solar system model is not technically wrong, it is just a lot more complicated. The helio centric model provides great conceptual and technical simplifications.

On the other hand, creationism is not only wrong whenever it makes factual assertions, it is not even a model because it provides no account of how God (or the intelligent designer) created anything.

705. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #155409 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Comment #154858 by sent2null

Excellent post as usual!

706. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155359 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 11:52 am

Sorry, but I don't get the point of this statement. Do we not discuss it because it may not be widely believed?

I was expressing my surprise that Artful would try something so crude.

707. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155356 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 11:49 am

Steve

Yes they did. James Hutton's "Theory of the Earth" (1785) discussed matters such as erosion and mountain building being slow processes

Yes, but that would have been considered wrong by 19th century physics. Thompson calculated the temperature of the earth and found that if it had been existed for as long as the geologists claimed it should be a lot colder due to cooling. The 19th century geologists (and Darwin) would not have been able to stand up against Thompson because he was right, given what they knew about physics then.

It turns out the earth's temperature is sustained by nuclear reaction in the core. This discovery of 20th century physics was what it took to vindicate the geologists. No one would have foreseen that in the 19th century, so based on the understanding of the time Thompson was absolutely correct in declaring the geologists wrong.

In comparison to 19th century physics, 19th century geology was a very crude science. Data were messy and ambiguous and there was no accurate way of dating (radioactive dating was developed way into the 20th century). It would make a lot of sense for a scientifically educated person in the 19th century to side with the physicists against the geologists.

So, going back to my original point. Even if Darwin wrote the origin of species at Newton's time , Newton would have been able to crush him like Thompson did.

Moreover, as the Fancis Collins prove, accepting evolution does not necessarily lead to atheism. Why do you think it would have been different for Newton?

I also don't see why you think that the apparently tedious biological theory advanced by Darwin, which had no mechanism for transmitting traits (Darwin knew nothing about genes) and invoked 'selection' in a rather ad hoc fashion would hold more sway to Newton than the far more elegant, precise and powerful physical theory that he himself came up with, which, in a certain crucial way, has already rendered God superfluous as Laplace insisted.

708. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155291 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 9:57 am

I don't know if a lot of theists actually use Pascal's wager as a serious argument.

709. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155286 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 9:53 am

I disagree. There was plenty of evidence that Thompson was wrong in other areas, such as geology.

Only in hindsight. Geologists in the 19th century had no way to stand up to Thompson scientifically,

He was right in rejecting Darwin based on what they knew in 19th century physics. Darwin himself conceded but held on to his ideas because of well, "gut feelings" which he developed over extensive field work.

We only found out Thompson was wrong in the 20th century, after both Thompson and Darwin were dead.

710. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155272 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 9:43 am

Steve

Newton's theological interest was enabled because theology was not particularly challenged by science at that time.

I disagree. Whether science posted a serious enough challenge to theology would depend on who you talk to. Laplace thought that Newtonian mechanics was enough to put an end to an interventionist God. Newton himself obviously didn't see it that way.

On the other hand, as I said in my previous post, Darwin himself was demolished by Thomson, successfully, even in the 19th century and Thompson was exactly correct given the state of science then. Had it not because of the discovery of nuclear reaction scientists simply could not accept the old earth theory. So yes, I think Newton would have rejected Darwin easily, even on scientific ground alone.

711. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155239 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 9:07 am

Artful

I don't think you can attribute Newton's passion for theology only to the fact that Darwin was not around yet to remind him of the fact that it was not actually intellectually respectable any longer to study such a non-subject.

I have to agree with that. There is not the slightest evidence that Newton would have been an atheist if Darwin was around in his time. In fact, the distinguished physicist Thomson (Lord Kelvin) dismissed Darwin because his calculations indicated a young earth and there wasn't enough time for evolution to take place (Kelvin's calculation was entirely correct based on 19th century physics, it was the discovery of nuclear reaction at the earth's core in the 20th century that invalided Thomson's calculation and saved evolution)

But then who says Newton was always rational and all his beliefs are correct?

Great scientists are creative people, they often have very eccentric views and the tendencies to create their own reality and give in to flights of fancy, They look at things from unconventional angles, that's why they are often able to see things that others don't. They are creators of grand ideas. But grand ideas are also often wrong, that's why the relatively dull process of verification of the scientific process comes in, to separate the correct ideas from the wrong ones.

There is often just a fine line between the crackpot and the genius, Newton was both. We should be careful to separate his science from his personal beliefs, many of which are very strange,--that is an understatement.

712. Pastor attacks scientist's talk

Comment #154985 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 3:33 am

It is quite a leap to go from "the possibility that there exists that which is not susceptible to empirical, scientific investigation then in principle you cannot rule out the possibility of this Transcendent Entity" to believing in the very specific accounts of the Bible.

Even if we acknowledge the possibility that "transcendent entities" may exist, it is no evidence for the Bible's authenticity."May be" is not a good reason to commit to believing in anything. This is at most an argument for agnosticism.

For anyone who understands how stories and myths are produced in civilizations the Bible can be ruled out simply on the ground that it was obviously created by men like all other tribal myths. There is nothing special about the Bible, in terms of narrative, stories and message.

Even if there is a God, you would expect him to have better taste and higher wisdom to reveal himself in such a stupid book.

713. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154969 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 3:15 am

If Robertson is not a creationist, then it is even more unethical for him to join the creationist chorus to demand "balance", because he is asking for equal time for what even he himself considers lies.

714. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154960 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 3:09 am

Well while atheists "come out", Robertson was outed as a creationist. Got to ask him next time..

715. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #154954 by Bonzai on April 4, 2008 at 3:03 am

So Robertson turns out to be a creationist?

716. Fleabytes

Comment #154366 by Bonzai on April 3, 2008 at 6:23 am

Doctor Benway,

n contrast, sociopaths behave as though they've got the independent corroboration right there with them. They're confident.

Interesting. But do you think the confidence can be consciously created? If you see evangelical preachers at work, you find them appear to be very confident in their claims, not even a little apologetic, yet it also seem so phony, almost a conscious con job.

For others who don't make a living on stage the apparent confidence may be just over compensation for their doubts in order to overcome cognitive dissonance. I think many fundies are over compensating.

717. Beware the Believers

Comment #154350 by Bonzai on April 3, 2008 at 6:03 am

Mphil.

It seems that most scholars, except for some people on the fringe, agree that Jesus did exist. But beyond that very little is known, most of the sayings and stories attributed to him were probably inventions at a later date.

But you wrote

But then there is the little problem that Jesus affirms the OT-law, even says he came to uphold it - so there's no getting away from that..

That seems to accept Jesus' existence and that he said he came to uphold the law as a premise. My point was simply that one has to pay lip service to a system in order to subvert it. I don't want to get side tracked into the historicity of Jesus.

If you like you can use the name "Jesus" as just a short hand for teachings and stories attributed to him, There would be many, not one Jesus because different Christian sects have different interpretations and we are in Post Modernist territories,--quite befitting for this thread.

718. Beware the Believers

Comment #154334 by Bonzai on April 3, 2008 at 5:46 am

But then there is the little problem that Jesus affirms the OT-law, even says he came to uphold it - so there's no getting away from that

This would be a problem for Christians only because they have to accept that Jesus didn't lie. But from a secular point of view it is easy to see why he said that. What Jesus did apparently was to subvert Judaism rather than declaring war on it. So he had to say he "fulfilled" the laws of the OT even though he actually disregarded them or reinterpreted them in a way unrecognizable to the religious Jews.

719. BBC 'too scared to allow jokes about Islam'

Comment #154314 by Bonzai on April 3, 2008 at 5:13 am

Islam is funny. Muslim men get together to show respect to Allah by mooning him. See how they raise their butts to heaven in prayers?

720. Fleabytes

Comment #154310 by Bonzai on April 3, 2008 at 5:07 am

I am going to have to apologise. I have just run out of energy for dealing with idiotic creationists in debates here. How many times do we have to go over the same arguments,

To save you time and energy you can just cut and paste from old posts and hit the submit button. Being a computer person who knows AI maybe you can write a little subroutine to generate automatic reply when it detects certain key creationist phrases and user names like "wooter". You can sell it to Rd.net. :-)

721. Beware the Believers

Comment #154304 by Bonzai on April 3, 2008 at 4:45 am

In a time when everyone was accustomed to whipping his slaves three times a day, one guy came along and said, no, this is very inhumane, you should be allowed to whip the slaves only once every three days. By comparison to his cohorts he might be called a "humanitarian", but certainly not much of an example to aspire to in cultures where slavery is simply unacceptable.

This is my take on Mohammad regarding the treatments of women if we were to believe that women were treated as badly in pre-Islamic Arabia as Muslims claim.But it is a great exaggeration to call him a "great feminist". A kinder and gentler jail keeper perhaps--if we believe in Muslim propaganda about the treatment of women in pre-Islamic Arabia.

But consider the following.

Mohammad's first wife Khadijah was a free, independent and wealthy merchant. She was 15 years (?) his senior. She married Mo when he was a nobody and I don't believe it was an arranged marriage. She owed nothing of her success and independence to Islam simply because there was no Islam then.Quite the opposite, her vast fortune was instrumental in starting Mohammad's career as a "prophet", I have serious doubt that women needed Mohammad to "liberate" them with the prescribed rigidity of Islam even in his time and culture. A woman like Khadijah probably wouldn't have existed under full blown Islam.

722. Fleabytes

Comment #154106 by Bonzai on April 2, 2008 at 4:31 pm

"Atheist music"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRbyC2cl9aY&feature=related

Besides being the lead singer of the punk band bad religion he is also a biology professor at UCLA..

723. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153595 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Dr.Benway

I think of citizenship as similar to adoption. Once it happens you're stuck with the person, even if they later turn out to be horrible trouble

In Canada, if you lied to get your citizenship, you can be deported if found out. I think U.S. and U.K. laws are probably the same.

724. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153355 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Brain,

They don't even need anything near a majority to make life miserable for liberal minded people.

725. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153349 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Brian

However, unless it (Islamic law) has some heft behind it, some means of becoming law in the western world, its relevance is about as meaningful as a comprehensive grasp of iChing or astrology

How can you be so confident? You don't need a Muslim majority for that to happen. As long as you have enough number of unassimulated Muslims who can vote as a bloc you are going to be in troubles. The evangelical Christians have never been a majority in the U.S., but there are enough of them who are politically motivated.

Malysia has always been known as a modern, secular Muslim country but there is big surge of religious conservatism in recent years, now there is talk of Sharia. Why? their parliament is fragmented and some small Islamist parties happen to hold the balance of power in some provinces. It doesn't take a majority of radicals to have enough electorial influences for politicians to cut deals with them.

I think Al is right on for this one. I too think that we have no business invading Muslim countries but we should crack down hard on the nutters in our own countries.

726. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #153264 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 10:10 am

I have already stated that free will, as Dennett defines it, is not what I call free will.

And "thinking", as you define it, is not what I call thinking.

727. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #153196 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 7:35 am

Jac

Sure you can. You digest food without WILLING it. You might even have a NACHTMARE without willing it (if you were going to tell me your stmach is different than your brain) - then again, your stomach only works because your brain is also working.

True. But digesting food doesn't involve thinking either. Are you now saying "I digest, therefore I am"? Nightmare, again is not "thinking".

It is not a "tangential point", it is the main point: you cannot divorce "I think" from "free will", if one is a delusion, so is the other. But then what does it mean to be delusional if there is no thinking mind to be deluded?

On the other hand, as you say, God and rock are somewhat in "the same" category in that we can certainly imagine God doesn't exist, or that the rock doesn't exist, but you can't even "imagine" without "free will".

That is why your attempted parallism between God and "free will" falls apart. You don't have to read any fancy philosophy to figure that out.

728. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153178 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 7:12 am

Dr.Benway.

I say, scrap the content arguments. Instead, argue against the faulty method of assigning confidence to beliefs that we see among nearly all the religions.

I disagree.

Content is all that counts. You are saying basically that there is a moral equivalence between believeing in Santa Claus and believeing in a God that tells you to commit mass murder. That is indeed absurd.

Moreover, to say that somehow to judge a belief by its content is inevitably based on "personal preference", even if that said belief may advocate the murder of infidels and enslavement of women, is implicitly legitimizing moral relativism. You are saying, basically, all content are the same, it all boils down to personal judgments. Sorry, murder is not a personal taste.

729. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153107 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 3:41 am

Steve

I just can't be bothered to debate any more.

Yeah, it is April 1. I almost got fooled.

730. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153104 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 3:35 am

If you were married, you'd have understood the joke...

Well I'm gay and very single..

731. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153099 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 3:16 am

irate

A shackled murderer is still a murderer

Do you actually believe that the vast majority of Catholics will take up the crusade and burn witches if you let them, that a poodle will attack like a wolf if you remove the leash?

Social institutions evolve and that is irreversibe

What!? With my wife!? How could it possibly happen?

Do you use condoms with your wife because you think she may have HIV? If not, or if you do that just for contraception then I don't see your point.

EDIT

Hardly leaves them with much moral credit it the bank, does it?

May not be much for you, but enough to make a difference for me while in Islamic countries which practice Shiaria law women are still being stoned to death for adultery, girls are still being judicially gang raped before their executions, homosexuals are still being hanged or beheaded, women are still being institutionally brutalized.

732. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153095 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 3:06 am

I hear talk that suggests mass deportation

Who suggested that?

Kicking out non citizens or barring entry of those with questionable beliefs is not mass deportation. We do that with Neo Nazis, among others, all the time.

I believe that religious beliefs are a problsm.

But I wouldn't equat the COE with the Islamism that is apparently festering in your country. COE Bishops who oppose same sex marriage are not even in the same league as Mullahs who preach that we should be beheaded and mean it. Have a little perspective.

733. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153091 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 2:54 am

irate

Presumably they tell them they will go to hell. Presumably, being ignorant, superstitious and gullible, they may well believe it.

Then how come they don't follow the not to have sex part? Presumably you will also go to hell for having sex.

734. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153089 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 2:49 am

bamboo

Both systems are equally abhorrent in their untamed form.

Yes, but we are not talking about abstractions or religious history here.

One is tamed by secularism the other isn't. That makes a huge difference. Until either Islam is dragged screaming and kicking into, well, at least the 19th century or the RC Church has devolved into its old way there is no equivalence between the two in the way they are practised in the real world.

A poodle used to be a wolf, but it would make little sense to say they are the same thing because they used to be.

735. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153079 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 2:27 am

Tell that to all the people in Africa dieing of HIV / AIDS because the Catholic Church won't let them wear condoms!

"Won't let them"? What if they do, are they going to be beheaded? To be fair, the Church also "won't let them" have sex and they wouldn't be dying of AIDs if they follow the whole package rather than just the no condom part.

So whose fault is it? The people who cherry pick the Church's instructions or the Church who gives stupid instructions knowing that it is human nature to have sex and cherry pick?

The RC Church is moribound and stupid but it is not anything like Islam. If you think they are the same just because "all religions are false" you are deluded.

736. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153072 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 2:05 am

elephant,

I know. I asked the question in all seriousness but always get ignored because they either think it is a joke or incredibly stupid.

737. Beware the Believers

Comment #153071 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 2:03 am

sent2null

That would be me Spinoza, and yes I was using the colloquial version ( I am an engineer not a philosopher!) of the term "empiricist" but you still couldn't help pushing the pedantry.

Perhaps 'spinoza' should have been featured in the video as well because he's smarter than all of us and is going to get his Ph.D.

738. Vatican: Islam surpasses Roman Catholicism as world's largest religion

Comment #153068 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 1:58 am

A case of 'who's got the biggest cult', eh?

Not all religions are the same. Islam is definitely much worse than Catholicism, which is merely stupid but not murderous.

739. Beware the Believers

Comment #153063 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 1:54 am

Richard,

Rap is poetry of the street. :) I used to hate it but now I find it actually quite ingenious. It is an acquired taste. A good rapper can make things up and rap them out on the spot, it is not easy.

740. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153062 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 1:53 am

It wasn't as obvious (to me at least) when they were conceived.

That is true. But for people of my generation (I'm in my 30's) that is quite inexplicable. My brother just had a son because his wife wanted that and they hadn't really thought it through, what kind of world do they want to bring a life into? I find that rather irresponsible.

741. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153055 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 1:39 am

This should be a warning to all the complacent "liberals" and "Multi-Cultists" in the West.

This pattern will repeat itself domestically in Western democratic countries if there are enough unassimulated Muslims. It is suicide to keep bringing them in while making special accomodations to encourage them to segregate themselves. I put "liberals" in quotes because by appeasing the demands of Islam they make a mockery of true liberal values.

I was reading some muslim forum. This Muslim guy was complaining that the U.K. was not good to Muslims because it didn't go far enough to accomodate their religion. I say enough is enough, it is about time to take a firm stand on liberal values. At least the gent (an American convert who is otherwise quite liberal) had the good sense to move to Saudi Arabia. I think more should do the same if they think their religion is the most important thing in their lives.

742. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153052 by Bonzai on April 1, 2008 at 1:25 am

epeeist

However, the more likely problems are going to be resource conflicts as peak oil occurs, global warming kicks in and makes areas unfit for agriculture. This and increase in populations in some countries is going to lead to the attempt by large numbers of people to emigrate to more prosperous countries with the concomitant resistance in the destination countries.

Given all that I sometimes think one has to be insane to have children. At least steve doesn't have any (and neither will I)

743. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152963 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 7:12 pm

The UN is a farce. This is a horrible thing for a Canadian to say, but I have to say it.

744. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152960 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 7:09 pm

How can there be a hate speech law against a belief,--which is an idea, not a person. This is absurd no matter which side you take on hate law.

745. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #152936 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 6:22 pm

So does it mean TGD would be banned by the UN?

This is sickening. Fuck Islam.

746. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152911 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 5:40 pm

In am an immigrant myself. We should welcome people from around the world who want to participate in our secular, pluralistic democracy. But we should slam the door shut to those who fundamentally disagree with our liberal values and way of life ands seek to undermine it from within. I am with Al on this, non citizens who preach hatred such as many foreign imams should be kicked out without hesitations. After all, we (Canada) do deport neo Nazies such as Ernst Zundel.

On another thread there is an article about Islamic countries succeeding in vetoing freedom of expression in the Universal Declaration of Human Right because of their large number.

You will have that problem domestically if your unassimilated Muslim population reach a certain critical point. This is not scare mongering, you can look at any country with a large number of Muslims, eventually they would want Sharia.

747. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152891 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 5:13 pm

I take exception in that a comfortable middle class western lifestyle does not exclude from resenting injustice. That is snobbery.

Many do resent injustice, but most people wouldn't actually blow themselves and their fellow citizens up because of what happen in some country that they can barely locate on the map. Maybe there is a limit to human empathy, we just don't get worked up over things that are remote from our direct experience. The jihadist's reaction to "injustice" is not a normal response. There is nothing snobish in pointing that out.

Also, a democracy cannot allowed its foreign policies to be dictated by blackmail. There are legitimate channel to effect changes. To even acknowledge that they may be motivated by "justice" is to legitimize their method.

748. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152879 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 5:01 pm

In fact one man I met from Abu Dhabi said "We want to be killed". That about summed it up for me.

What if they get killed with bullets coated with pig blood. Do they still go to heaven?

Maybe instead of dropping bombs, spraying them with pig shit would deter them?

749. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152867 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Some people are talking about "the religious groups" presumably not to single out Islam.

The religious groups? Not all religious groups are the same. The COE, the Catholic Church and even that arsehole Robertson's church are not anything like Islam.

Islam is a toxic ideology, you would be deluded to think it is just another religious problem and respond with the trite "all religions are false" homilies. Some people here seem to take equal offence, if not more, at COE Bishops opposing same sex marriage as imams calling for killing gays, right under their noses.

I have argued many times that when there is a specific conflict where real grievances are involved, it is naive to attribute the primary cause to religion. The M.E conflict is geo political rather than religious in nature. I still stand by that.

But this doesn't let Islam off the hook. While geopolitical struggle and nationalism explain Hamas, it doesn't explain why British born and raised Muslims would blow up the subway.

When our "leftists" try to spin it by laying the blame on "British foreign policies", there is an air of unreality to it. The fact is many of these young Jihadists had never lived a day outside their comfortable middle Class Western lifestyle. They wouldn't know what it is like to be in Iraq or Palestine. If they mention "British foreign policies" at all, it is almost an afterthought.

Some, like Nairb may say these young men are alienated so it is again the society's fault and we need more accommodations, not less, to their religion to remove the alienation. It is as if the teaching of Islam has nothing to do with it.

There are many alienated young people of varying racial and religious background, but none other than Muslims are talking about Caliphate and plotting mass terrorist attacks.

We can accept the supposition of alienation and do a thought experiment. If our alienated young man discovers the Hare Krishna instead of Allah, he may get a bit goofy, but certainly wouldn't have develop the idea that blowing up a trainload of innocent people is a legitimate way to deal with his alienation and with God's blessings too. Even if he takes up Christian fundamentalism, he would just become a prick rather than a homicidal maniac.

All religions are not the same and we better not delude ourselves into thinking that they are.

Also, as AL pointed out, the danger of radical Islam is not confined to terrorism, which seems to be getting all the attentions. Sharia through the ballot box is just as deadly. Take a look at the alarming rate of radicalization of Malaysia, which has been always a model of a secular, modern Muslim country.

750. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152805 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 3:02 pm

"What you get is outrage and a sense of alienation."

"Alienation" is the condition of all young people, and Muslims are not the only immigrants. How come no one else are plotting to blow up subways and behead politicians?